RE: [tlug] non-GPL dll inside GPL

[<burlingk@example.com>]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:54:52 +0900,
Nguyen Vu Hung <vu-hung@example.com> wrote
in <4695C22C.7050003@example.com>:

> 
> Unikey ( http://unikey.org ) is a Vietnamese keyboard driver licensed
> under GPL.
> 
> Arcording to README.txt in Unikey 3.62, it contains a non-open-source
> library ( rtfio.dll ).
> 
<Snip>
> >From version 3.62, UniKey uses RtfIO library for converting 
> rich texts. At the moment I cannot
> release source code of this library. Therefore, this package 
> includes only the binary library
> in rtfio\rtfio.dll. You will need rtfio\rtfio.lib to build 
> UniKey. The header file of 
> this library is rtfio\intrtfio.h. To run UniKey, rtfio.dll 
> must be in the same folder as UniKey program. 

Ok...  Down to the nitty gritty.
The first question to ask is simple,
"Does the author have the right to distribute the 
 library in binary dll form with his project."

If the answer is no, then that pretty much hoses
the whole project as a valid GPL project.

If the answer is yes, that he does have the right
to do this, then it should be ok as a project.  There are
just two potential moral issues in the eyes of many
Free Software, and a few Open Source programmers.

1)  It uses a closed library.  This makes a lot of people
nervouse, and for some of the Free Software guys, it is
borderline on being an ethical issue. :P

2)  It binds the source code temporarily to a specific
platform.  This means that if someone wants to use the
code on a platform other than windows, they need to put
a lot of work into emulating the functionality of that
Library.

In either case, depending on which version of the GPL that
he used, it should be legal, but not necessarily in keeping
with what a lot of the community likes.

On the legal side of things, and the word of the liscense it
all comes down to that first copy right question.  Does he
have the express right to copy and distribute that binary
file.  Under the liscense, as long as all the files are there
that are needed to compile and run the program, it should
be ok.  It would be good for the future of his project though
if he could obtain the right to distribute the dll file freely.

Another thing he might concider is to use whichever DLL that
Windows uses internally, and creat a wrapper for it.  That would
allow him to modify the wrapper to work with libraries under
different environments. ^^;